Somewhat unexpectedly, the Wake County school system posted the full draft 2013-14 student assignment plan online in advance of Tuesday's school board presentation.
As noted in today's article, this document shows that the plan recommends reassigning 1,479 students, most of whom would go to three "new" schools: Richland Creek Elementary, Rolesville Middle and Rolesville High.
For the second year in a row, staff is recommending delaying the opening of Abbotts Creek Elementary. The document doesn't say why, but some families have balked at the thought of going to a modular school whose funding isn't in place for the permanent building.
Stay where you start is in the plan as it expands the grade levels to allow all students to stay at their current school. This means 1,050 of the 1,479 are eligible for grandfathering.
But since most of the grandfathered students face reassignment to a new school, grandfathering would mean loss of transportation.
Since most of the reassignments seem to be designed to fill the new schools or to create spots for magnet applicants at Fox Road Elementary School, not much was done to deal with overcrowding in other areas. Instead, you've got a proposal for full enrollment caps at 12 schools and partial caps at 22 schools.
Some of the schools recommended for full caps are popular ones like Lacy Elementary and Davis Drive Elementary. Considering how real-estate agents grumbled about the choice plan keeping families out of schools like Lacy, this could raise some eyebrows.
In terms of magnet schools, the plan addresses two things previously discussed at an October board work session.
The plan recommends returning to making all rising sixth- and ninth-grade magnet students apply to advance to the next magnet school level. This would cover group one, two and three magnets.
These students would have the second highest priority behind siblings. It's a change from the choice plan where the students were moved into the next magnet level without having to do anything.
In a related feeder issue, the plan says that feeder paths from the choice plan will be honored "to the extent possible" if they're requested next year by rising sixth- and ninth-graders.
The plan also restores the setting aside of 10 percent of magnet openings by random lottery.
One unusual thing is that the plan is scheduled to be presented Tuesday during the work session in the board conference room. Historically, the plan is presented during the regular meeting in the main board room where it's broadcast on cable.
Comments
Stability
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 17:32 — mankinsI looks to me that this system will result in the same stability issues that lead to the school board shake ups. This is effectively putting the old policy back in place so we can expect political infighting (as parents fight to stay a well-funded schools) and large annual reassignments.
What I don't get is how the school board thinks the independent voters will back them for this. As I see it, the Republicans won because parents were sick of reassignments. However, the Republicans forced through their changes which angered the Democrats base and alienated some of their independent supporters. Now, the Democrats are back in the saddle acting like the Republican did - forcing through the re-adoption of the old, hated policy.
Given the active growth in the county, a fixed nodal system is inherited unstable. Also, the progressives and some minority groups fear a fully choice based system will lead to re-segregation. Magnets are the only proven system for break up lower performing schools by attracting suburban children with extra services, but they are disliked by some due to the uneven application of resources. We need a compromise that combines elements of all the above but our school board is too focused on ideology to be practical.
I wish we could recall the whole board. Failing that, can we get the Libertarian or Green parties to back candidates? We need people capable of acting in the best interests of the county, students and parents. Not people who are looking for higher office, kowtowing to the NAACP or the party bosses. Personally, I will never vote for any of the recent Wake School Board Members.
what is most telling is the board of elections maps
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 23:30 — snordoneThey are fascinating - the clear and dividing blue and red. This county is growing outward, not inward. The balance of power will tip, and ITB will be left holding a lot of the pieces they don't want. It is a shame that they don't look at the maps and see the benefit of compromise now.
Oh the lies of stability, stability, stability
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 20:17 — FSandYOUThe board is not one bit concerned about what the indy voter thinks or supports. Maybe when you are paying attention longer than 6 weeks and 6 days you'll understand that. But, since we can't all stay on top of all things wcpss let me offer up another piece of advice, your idea of "compromise" doesn't exist in this school system. It's their way and that's it. You, as a parent, can shut the spit up and do as you're told. That is how it has always worked here and except for those few months when the liberal socialists weren't trying to screw parents in '10-'11 that is how it will always be.
As for recalling them, another dream. If you really want to fix the problem,
RECALL THE VOTERS. This is all their faults!!
Partial Capped Schools as Calendar Options?
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:57 — CaryMomof4If a partial cap means that only students in the base area will be allowed to attend, then how can they list schools with partial caps as calendar options (Swift Creek, for example has a partial cap, but is listed as a calendar choice for Adams)? Am I missing something?
Capping that school doesn't seem to make sense
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:44 — nmoskalGiven we are back to the 2011-12 maps and given per the 2011-12 annual report only 68% of students at Swift Creek in '11-12 were base assigned, which was 364 students (far below target capacity), it doesn't seem to make sense to cap it. SC isn't overcrowded due to "base" students, but I believe rather due to calendar option and transfer students + students who applied to it as a regional choice school this year.
If they limit it to base students, it seems it could become underenrolled unless they expect a lot of kids from new housing, which doesn't seem there would be that many.
I'm curious about the
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:46 — jneisnerI'm curious about the enrollment caps -- some of the elementary schools with proposed full caps are barely over 100% capacity -- and are actually less crowded than most schools with proposed partial caps, which doesn't make ANY sense. I'm looking specifically at Conn (100.6%), Underwood (100.2%) and Wiley (101.3%. Their first two overflow schools are FAR away and/or year-round (Durant, Adams, Wilburn, Oak Grove, Abbots Creek); their 3rd choices (the most proximate choices, the ones parents would be most likely to choose if required) are either Stough or York. Given that these schools are barely overcrowded, this looks to me like yet another plan to backfill Stough and York.
Wiley
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 12:59 — turnerk1I can't speak to the other schools, but Wiley's enrollement percentage is misleading. Because the building is very old, there are many very small classrooms that in the past they used for electives or as storage areas, etc.. However, the current principal has made some changes that have forced classes into these spaces. Basically, the program has outgrown the facility. I think they need to demagnitize Wiley and send the program to a larger building. The ideal school population number for Wiley given the challenges with the facility is about 380 students, and now it is quite a bit more than that. But, we all know that these school capacity numbers seem very fungible.
I agree.
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 14:40 — jenmanI agree.
probably
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 19:10 — snordoneThis seems to be their solution to the under enrollment problem, the old way of trying to force parents into under resourced schools. People will see if for what it is, won't show up for the reassignment and won't support the bond when we have so many schools that are under enrolled. Feels like we have to relive 2004-2008 in order for them to understand why Tony's approach was working.
I won't do it - will you?
I agree about the overflow
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 15:11 — jenmanI agree about the overflow schools--they just don't make any sense. Durant and Abbotts Creek for Lacy, Underwood & Brooks?
Calendar options..
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:23 — WakeCtyMomAlong those lines, why is Brassfield not a calendar option for any school? For example, the calendar option for Green is Durant Road which is A. further away than Brassfield and B. more crowded than Brassfield.
Durant is also the overflow/calendar option for SEVERAL other schools and is already at 96% of capacity while Brassfield is 89% (and is not an option or overflow for anyone). It makes NO sense.
Also, the calendar option for Lynn Road is Wakefield - which is MUCH further away than Brassfield.
Similar situation with Pleasant Union
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 09:21 — morah_lPleasant Union is also not a calendar option for any school. Our calendar option from Baileywick is Sycamore Creek which is much closer to capacity that Pleasant Union or Brassfield. Both Pleasant Union and Brassfield are significantly closer to us. (We are actually in the walk zone for PU.) The only thing I can think is that they literally went back to the prior plan which did have SC as our year-round option. That was back when SC was new and they were filling all four tracks. I guess the big changes will be saved for next year.
Sure they went back to the "diversity" plan
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 15:23 — FSandYOUThat was their intent all along, even though they continue to lie to the public and say it wasn't.
As for saving the BIG changes, correct you are again. They have a few morons fooled into thinking "oh boy, it's only 1500+/- being reassigned."
Right!
Just wait until 2014-15!!
The Fleecing of Wake County children will continue and apparently that is ok with most parents.
Looks like Sam can say mission accomplished
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 17:53 — FSandYOUIsn't that his school?
He made it DISAPPEAR like the Dems made Tony Tata DISAPPEAR!
Shazzzzzzzam!!
Mr. Hui, are you saying that
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 12:39 — DrActualFactualMr. Hui, are you saying that the final version of this plan will not be presented to the public unless the work session meeting is streamed live? It will not be on cable and archived?
The presentation may be
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:16 — KeungHui (author)The presentation may be archived by the school system on the website, like what happened when the initial version was presented Sept. 18. The work sessions are not aired on public access cable. That's why the staff plan is historically presented during the regular meetings and not the work sessions.
The only live streaming from the work session would likely be from WRAL. Wake doesn't yet have the option up to stream the meetings live on the district website.
Maps Shaded?
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 11:42 — jenmanAre the maps in that doc shaded for anybody? I see that nodes are supposed to be color coded for whether or not they are staying at each school but they are not shaded for me. Just wondering if I've got something wrong on my end.
The more easy to read color
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 13:17 — KeungHui (author)The more easy to read color versions should be available Tuesday.
Not for me...
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 11:53 — Bob_SconceI don't get any shading either. And the maps are a mess.
They do list the nodes that were being reassigned, but I can no longer find the place on the district website where you can look up your node, or that shows node maps.
Is this BOE for...
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 11:40 — bpuli9999real? Folks on this forum were predicting 40-50 thousand reasssignments and they go with 500? What is wrong with them? Should have at least considered the feelings of the right wingnuts who post here! Maybe the year after next, huh?
Don't follow the board much,
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 18:43 — jeffrey1Don't follow the board much, eh. Or this blog it appears. Or the newspaper. Or TV.
The reassignments are coming. Martin et all has said there will be major reassignment next year. Got to balance those schools, you know.
Siblings
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 10:52 — WakeCtyMomIt also appears to guarantee siblings of non-base students entry into schools which are fully capped (is that how others are reading it?). The previous plan was not going to allow siblings if the school was fully capped with base students.
It also fails to give someone a "bump" in priority if they are applying to their calendar choice school like the original plan did. Other than getting transportation to your calendar choice (if you get it), I don't see any advantage in applying to your official calendar choice versus any other school in the district.
You're right about them
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 11:30 — KeungHui (author)You're right about them guaranteeing rising K, 6 and 9th-graders who want to get into a capped school with an older sibling who's already there.
Will the new Rolesville HS have 11th&12th graders
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 10:35 — ncstahls413So I found our 'node' & it shows Wakefield HS as our previous assignment (we're currently in a Charter school & will transition to WCPSS for HS) & it shows us moving to the Rolesville HS but it shows #'s of students for 9- 12th grade. I thought it would open with 9th & 10th grade only. It also appears that the only nodes listed are the ones that are changing - correct? Thank you for keeping families informed of all the changes so we can respond to the Board about the problems with the plan.
The school will only open
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 10:39 — KeungHui (author)The school will only open with freshmen and sophomores next year. The nodes listed are presumably the only ones being moved.